alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CERTIFICATE OF CONVERSION OF GENERAL PARTNERSHIP
                TO A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

                             OF

                EMPIRE STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES

        UNDER SECTION 1006 OF THE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LAW

FIRST:     The general partnership was, in accordance with the
provisions of the Limited Liability Company Law, duly converted to a
limited liability company.

SECOND:    The name of the general partnership was: EMPIRE STATE
BUILDING ASSOCIATES.

THIRD:     The name of the limited liability company is: EMPIRE
STATE BUILDING ASSOCIATES L.L.C.

FOURTH:    The county within this state in which the office of
the limited liability company is to be located is: New York.

FIFTH:     The Secretary of State is designated as the agent of
the limited liability company upon whom process against it may be
served.  The post office address within or without this state to which
the Secretary of State shall mail a copy of process against the
limited liability company served upon him or her is: Wien & Malkin
LLP, 60 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10165, Attn: Thomas N.
Keltner, Jr.

SIXTH:     The limited liability company is to be managed by
(check the appropriate box):

     x  1 or more members
 	A class or classes of members
 	1 or more managers
	A class or classes of managers

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this certificate has been subscribed this 30th
day of September 2001, by the undersigned who affirms that the
statements made herein are true under the penalties of perjury.

By /s/ Peter L. Malkin		Peter L. Malkin, Authorized Person
(signature)                     (name and capacity of signer)



8841
# Schedule B13

&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12SPE4A6-15-R-0340		&"Times New Roman,Bold"&12Schedule B13
September 10, 2012

Mr. Jesse A. Floberg
Pavco, Inc.

1110 26 th Avenue, NW. Gig Harbor, WA 98335

Dear Mr. Floberg:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulati ons (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We entered your August 16, 2012, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2012- 0884), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of 14 CFR 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

 The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside

the United States.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we receive this required information from you. Please note that 14 CFR 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
# C_2014061EN.01001502.xml

| 1.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 61/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 61/15

---

Action brought on 27 December 2013 — Steinbeck v OHIM — Alfred Sternjakob (BE HAPPY)

(Case T-709/13)

2014/C 61/27

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Steinbeck GmbH (Fulda, Germany) (represented by: M. Heinrich and M. Fischer, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG (Frankenthal, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 32/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 17 October 2013 in Case R 32/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs including those incurred in the course of the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought: the word mark ‘BE HAPPY’ for goods in Classes 16, 21, 28 and 30 — Community trade mark No 5 310 057

Registered Community trade mark in respect of which a declaration of invalidity has been sought:

Proprietor of the Community trade mark: the applicant

Proprietor of the Community trade mark:

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark: Alfred Sternjakob GmbH & Co. KG

Applicant for the declaration of invalidity of the Community trade mark:

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity: the absolute grounds for invalidity under Article 52(1)(a) of Regulation No 207/2009 in conjunction with Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of that regulation

Grounds for the application for a declaration of invalidity:

Decision of the Cancellation Division: the application for a declaration of invalidity was granted

Decision of the Cancellation Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JU LY 20, 2018

NO. 03

- 17

- 00162

- CR

Mario Andreas Company, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 390TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE , JUSTICES GOODWIN A ND FIELD

AFFIRMED

— OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the district court. Having reviewed

t he record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.
# C_2016038EN.01000401.xml

| 1.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 38/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 38/4

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 26 November 2015 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgerichtshof — Austria) — MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

(Case C-166/14) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Public procurement - Directive 89/665/EEC - Principles of effectiveness and equivalence - Review procedures concerning the award of public contracts - Period allowed for commencing proceedings - National legislation making an action for damages subject to a precondition that the procedure be declared unlawful - Limitation period which starts to run irrespective of the applicant’s knowledge of the unlawfulness))

(2016/C 038/04)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Verwaltungsgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: MedEval — Qualitäts-, Leistungs- und Struktur-Evaluierung im Gesundheitswesen GmbH

Applicant:

Intervening parties: Bundesminister für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft, Hauptverband der österreichischen Sozialversicherungsträger, Pharmazeutische Gehaltskasse für Österreich

Intervening parties:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

EU law, in particular the principle of effectiveness, precludes national legislation which makes bringing an action for damages in respect of the infringement of a rule of public procurement law subject to a prior finding that the public procurement procedure for the contract in question was unlawful because of the lack of prior publication of a contract notice, where the action for a declaration of unlawfulness is subject to a six-month limitation period which starts to run on the day after the date of the award of the public contract in question, irrespective of whether or not the applicant in that action was in a position to know of the unlawfulness affecting the decision of the awarding authority.

---

(1)  OJ C 282, 25.8.2014.

1

---
No. 10-481.

#### Ford Motor Credit Company, Petitioner v. Michigan Department of Treasury, et al.

562 U.S. 1178, 131 S. Ct. 1000,

178 L. Ed. 2d 826,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 810.

January 18, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Michigan denied.
---

Exhibit 32.1

**OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Envirokare Tech, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, I, George Kazantzis, Acting President (Principal Financial Officer) and Nicholas Pappas (Chief Executive Officer) of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,

That the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate on this 14th day of November 2005.

/s/ George Kazantzis
  _______________________________
  Name: George Kazantzis
  Title: President (Principal Financial Officer)

/s/ Nicholas Pappas
  _______________________________
  Name: Nicholas Pappas
  Title: Chief Executive Officer (Chief Executive Officer)
Crime Prevention Month campaign focuses on fraud, theft in the workplace
 
  By Amanda Neumann
                          DLA Enterprise Hotline           National Crime Prevention Council   iWatch DLA
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 131 (Thursday, July 9, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 37091]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-18196]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Revised Land and Resource Management Plans, Boise National Forest 
and Payette National Forest, Idaho; Significant Amendment Land and 
Resource Management Plan, Sawtooth National Forest, ID

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Supplement to notice of intent to prepare an Environmental 
Impact Statement in conjunction with revision of the Land and Resource 
Management Plans for the Boise and Payette National Forests, and 
significant amendment to the Land and Resource Management Plan for the 
Sawtooth National Forest located in Ada, Adams, Blaine, Boise, Camas, 
Canyon, Cassia, Custer, Elmore, Gem, Gooding, Idaho, Jerome, Lincoln, 
Minidoka, Owyhee, Payette, Twin Falls, Valley and Washington Counties, 
Idaho; Box Elder Country, Utah, and Malheur County, Oregon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENT: On June 29, 1998, Regional Forester Jack Blackwell made a 
decision to extend the comment period on the proposed programmatic 
action for the Revision of the Forest Plans for the Boise and Payette 
National Forests and the Significant Amendment of the Forest Plan for 
the Sawtooth National Forest. As defined in the Federal Register, Vol. 
63, No. 79, dated Friday, April 24, 1998, the original comment period 
ended on June 25, 1998. In response to public requests, the comment 
period has been extended an additional 60 days and will now close on 
August 25, 1998.
    For further information concerning this project, contact Jeff Foss, 
Boise National Forest Planner at 1249 South Vinnell Way, Boise, Idaho, 
83709; Faye Krueger, Payette National Forest Planner at P.O. Box 1026, 
McCall, Idaho, 83638; or Sharon LaBrecque, Sawtooth National Forest 
Planner at 2647 Kimberly Road, Twin Falls, Idaho, 83301.
    Comments concerning this project should be sent to Joey Pearson, 
Administrative Assistant, Payette National Forest, P.O. Box 1026, 
McCall, Idaho, 83638.

    Dated: July 1, 1998.
Christopher L. Pyron,
Deputy Regional Forester, Administration.
[FR Doc. 98-18196 Filed 7-8-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of R.H. Donnelley
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to such
officer's knowledge:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the
            Report.


/s/ Steven M. Blondy

Steven M. Blondy
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2003

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



                                       52
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 30, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-20015 Summary Calendar

GARY CLYDE DANIELS Plaintiff-Appellant

v. MRS JO BEASLEY, PCA Nurse; MRS BARBARA HOLLNAGEL; MRS THERESA PLACE; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; MR ROBERTS, Physician Assistant Nurse; RANDALL HEALY Defendants-Appellees

--------------------------------------------------------- GARY CLYDE DANIELS Plaineiff-Appellant

v. JO BEASLEY; BARBARA HOLLNAGEL; THERESA PLACE; UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL BRANCH; MR ROBERTS Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:06-CV-3246 USDC No. 4:06-CV-3284No. 07-20015

* Pursuant to 5

TH C IR
. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4.

2 Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Gary Clyde Daniels, Texas prisoner # 579867, appeals from the dismissal of his civil rights suit in which he alleged that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical needs. The district court concluded that the suit was frivolous. Daniels argues that defendant Beasley gave him the wrong medication, whi ch resulted in excessive sleep, a loss of appetite, and a temporary loss of vision. Daniels has not challenged the district court’s conclusion that the other named defendants were not personally involved in the submission of the wrong medication, and any such claim is abandoned. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). With respect to Beasley, Daniels has not established that her actions involved more than negligence. See Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). Additionally, Daniels has not shown that his injuries were more than de minimis. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e); Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Daniels’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard
v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, it is dismissed. See 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2. Daniels is cautioned that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous, and the district court’s dismissal of his complaint as frivolous, count as strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). SeeAdepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). He is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he will be unable to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained inNo. 07-20015

3 any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
1 ... T h i s pr oce edi n g ar i s es ou t of Cau s e N o. 2008- CR
- 7574, s t y l ed St at e v . R i car do Lop ez , p e n d ing in the 1 4 4 th Jud i ci al D i st ri ct C o urt , B exar C o unt y , T exas, t he H o no rable Ca t heri ne T o rr es- Stahl presi d i ng. i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION
No
. 04 -0 9- 00 43 8- CR IN RE Ricardo LO PEZ Orig inal Mandamus Proce eding 1 PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Kar en Ang elini, J ustice

Steven C. Hilbig, Just ice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 12, 2009 PETI TI ON F OR WR I T OF MANDAMUS DEN I ED On J uly 20, 2009, rela tor Ricardo L opez filed a petition for writ of m andamus, c omplaining of the trial court’s failure to rule on his “Motion to Dismiss-Failure to Provide a S peedy Trial.” To obtain a petition for writ of m andamus compelling the trial court to consider and rule on a motion,
a re la tor mus t e sta bli shthat th e tr ia l c ourt : ( 1) ha d a le g a l duty

to p e rf or m a no n- dis c re tio na

ry a c t; (2) wa s asked to per form the act; and (3) failed or ref used to do so. In re M

olina , 94 S.W .3d 885, 886 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2003, orig . proce eding ). When a prope rly filed motion is pending befor e a tr ial court, the a ct of g iving c onsideration to and r uling upon that motion is mini sterial, and04
- 09
- 00 43 8- CR

- 2- mandamus may

issue to compel the trial judg e to ac t. See Sa fe ty -K le e n Co rp . v . G ar c ia , 945 S.W .2d 268, 269 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1997, orig . proce eding ). Ho weve r, re lator has the burden of providing this court with a record sufficient to establish his rig ht to mandamus relief
. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7(a) (“Relator must file with th e petition [ ] a ce rtified or swor n copy of eve ry document that is ma terial to the rela tor’s claim for relief and that was filed i n an y u n derlying pr oc e e din g ” ); see also T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k)( 1)(A) ; W alker v . Pack

er , 8 2 7 S. W. 2 d

8 3 3 , 8 3 7 ( T e x. 1992). He re, r elator has not pr ovided this c ourt with a file stamped copy of his motions or any other documents to support his claim for r elief. N or has r elator e stabl i s h ed that the trial cour t has bee n made a war e of his motions or h as ex pressly ref used to rule on them. Se e In re Is be ll , No. 04-06- 0 0 5 5 8 -C V, 2006 W L

3206075 , at * 2 (T ex . Ap p . — S an An t o n i o No v em b er 8 , 2 0 0 6 , o ri g. p ro ce ed i n g) (mem. op
. ). W e conclude that rela tor has not shown himself entitled to mandamus re lief. Acc ording ly , the petition for wr it of mandamus is denied. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.8(a)
. Ad dit ion a lly , r e la tor fi le d a n Ap pli c a tio n f or L e a ve to F ile Pe tit ion

fo r Wr it o f M a nd a mus . No l ea v e is require d to file a pe tition for a writ of manda mus in thi s court. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52. There fore , rela tor’s motion for leave to file is denied a s moot. PER C URI AM DO NO T PU B L I SH
Exhibit 99.1

                                  OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Envirokare Tech, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 12, 2002 (the "Report"), I,
Steve Pappas, President and Treasurer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal
Financial Officer) of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

(1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate on this
12th day of November 2002.


                                     /s/     STEVE PAPPAS
                                     ------------------------------------------
                                     Name:   Steve Pappas
                                     Title:  President and Treasurer (Principal
                                             Executive Officer and Principal
                                             Financial Officer)
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 43220

STATE OF IDAHO

,

Plaintiff

- Respondent

,

v.

ALLISSA BREEANNA DUNLAP

,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2016 Unpublished Opinion No. 344

Filed: January 26, 2016

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Melissa Moody , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and unified sentence of ten years, with a minimum period of confinement of two years, for grand theft, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Reed P. Anderson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney Gener al; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________

Before GUTIERREZ, Judge; GRATTON, Judge;

and HUSKEY, J udge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Allissa Breeanna Dunlap pled guilty to grand theft . Idaho Code § § 18

- 2403 (1) , 18

-
2407(1)(b), 18

- 2409 . The district court sentenced Dunlap to a unified term of ten years with two

years determinate

. Dunlap appeals asserting that the district court abused its discretion by

imposing an excessive sentence

. Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s discretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 1 14, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

-
15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.2

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Dunlap ’s judg ment of conviction and sentence are affirmed.